My opinion is that he sees those curves working, and he likes them. He needs to see them not working for one of his predictions.
As @dsterncardinale mentioned in the thread earlier after I drew out some scenarios and saw the curves do not always work, I also basically wrote they could possibly work as a rough approximation with enough sampling and the right root. But he doesnāt have enough evidence yet to show thatās the case. He either needs a simulation or much more evidence that fits predictions. What he has now could just be coincidental and spurious.
Iām curious if @evograd has any relevant data from the programming he was doing for exponential growth scenarios. I was looking forward to that. If you have the time to indulge us (I mean, me) haha.
You are accurate but not as much as you think. My biggest beef is that you frequently donāt distinguish between whether youāre referring to mtDNA or the y-chromosome when the evidence and so the arguments can be completely different. For some reason I was really confused and thought the substitution rate had to do with drift. Maybe you have referred to selection. But I didnāt get it. Not necessarily your fault. Just letting you know.
Did anyone see that Rob Carter put out a video a day or two ago? He was complimentary of Jeanson but the title of the video was that there was no molecular clock. His explanations were very helpful. I like that they donāt agree because more actually gets uncovered that way.
Anyway, he mentioned that North American settlement by Q has been used an anchor point for dating the mainstream phylogeny. (I donāt know if Iām explaining that right).
I think the same thing could be done for a creationist y-chromosome tree. At least if a hypothesis I barely hinted at is correctā¦ I hinted a little in my conversations with @Tim that after some research I didnāt agree with Jeansonās ideas about the recent history of R1b in Europe. Instead, I think it is French (who immigrated from Central Asia much earlier.) Mainstream science thinks the western European origin is Spain and radiates from Spain probably because itās high in the Basque country. But I think itās radiates from southern France because of French Huguenot persecution. Over almost few centuries, but especially in the 1600s they fled to Basque country, northern Italy, the Netherlands, England, Ireland, the Americas, Australia, South Africa, etc, sometimes a generation immigrating to one area and the next generation moving on. It was basically genocidal and those people who immigrated from France had lots of kids, haha. The R1b split seems to be somewhere in the line of Henry IV (because of a few papers confirming that). The idea seems plausible anyway. And people took their surnames from places they lived so many related people had different names at the time. And many of the persecuted were educated and from nobility, so R1b could be Capetian and kingly. I think this hypothesis is plausible but I didnāt feel like I had the time to defend it through more research. I definitely donāt now, haha. The start of school made life even crazier. I just wanted to share this if there are any creationist lurkers who want to take up the hypothesis. Itās another way to approach the y-chromosome phylogeny whether the clock works or not. It seems like the genealogies to find the R1b ancestor should be out there. Itās always hard to tell with non-paternity eventsā¦but perhaps enough data could be accumulated. Either way, fun to think aboutā¦and a very different explanation than an evolutionary phylogeny!!